User:Mssystem.dll/Pages/001

Please block me
Dear admins, May I please ask you to block me indefinitely, with revoking the privilege of editing my user pages and disabling my email. Please loose no time to understand my request. I cannot understand it myself. Please just do as I ask. Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 19:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a pointless time-waste to do such things. If you don't want to use Wikipedia for the moment, there is a "log out" button in the upper right corner of the screen.  This has the added advantages of 1) nobody else has to do work to make this happen, and 2) you can log back in whenever you want.  Friday (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, we don't do that, it never ends well. Try WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer instead-- Jac 16888 Talk 19:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indefinitely blocked per request. Either the request is valid, or the account has been compromised - either way warrants an indefinite block. However, I declined to protect the talk page or disable email. Tan   &#124;   39  19:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No it does not! What were you thinking? Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, I have no idea how to answer your question. Tan   &#124;   39  19:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. There's no reason blocks shouldn't be doled out on request. Once, anyway. If the user was EUI, s/he may request an unblock via the normal process. It's also worth noting a current thread with the same comment on the Commons version of AN. → ROUX   ₪  20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. Please be aware that Wikipedia administrators will only block users if: Hopefully that helps! — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A) The editor is disrupting Wikipedia
 * D) The editor is violating policies and guidelines.
 * C) The editor has been banned by the community, Jimbo Wales, or the Arbitration Committee.
 * D) The editor has violated an editing restriction by the community or the Arbitration Committee.
 * And more can be found at the blocking policy
 * Wait. Don't block him. He could be drunk or EUI (no, I'm not an admin, but nobody thought of this yet. Sorry). Spongefrog,   (talk to me, or else)  20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither am I. I'm just a regular editor (and rollbacker) who just happened to show up here. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw no reason not to conform with this request, and especially if the account is compromised, as is a very real possibility, given the "block me and lock everything down" nature of the request. Talk page remains enabled; when he iether changes his mind or regains control of the account, the situation can be reinvestigated. Tan   &#124;   39  20:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except it's always been protocol to not block people on their whim. If they just needed a wikibreak, now they have a tarnished block log. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the proscription of self-requested blocks was removed from the policy almost nine months ago. ÷seresin 20:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And see the relevant discussion here. — Satori Son 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also what if the autoblocker kicks in and blocks someone else who edits using the same IP? Theresa Knott &#124; token threats 20:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now I can agree with that concern. I have removed the autoblock. Tan   &#124;   39  20:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

→Non-admins can comment here? The page name is a bit misleading. I actually agree with Tanthalas now. Especially since the user said "please loose [sic] no time". BUT this could also mean the compromiser of the account wrote that, to get the real account owner blocked. It's probably safer just to block for now. Spongefrog,  (talk to me, or else)  20:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC) If it is a compromised account, then they still have e-mail/talkpage if they manage to regain control of their account, otherwise they'll have to create a new user, which they would have had to do anyway - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * never mind, this was after 3 edit conflicts. Spongefrog,   (talk to me, or else)  20:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, non-admins can comment here. The page name is because it's for bringing incidents to admin eyes. But that doesn't mean only admins get to give their input. - Kingpin13 (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing as Spongefrog - that the user might have done this as a way to get someone else blocked. Another possibility is that the account is compromised and that someone else asked for it to be blocked - but if it's compromised, it should be blocked anyway. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * True, and mainly because of that I disagree that this user should be blocked. They claim that it's because they are addicted to editing, and need to get away from Wikipedia. That's what the wikibreakEnforcer is for, not what admin's blocking abilities are for.
 * I don't see any harm with the block having been done, although I think I would have told the user he needed to answer Theresa's "Why?" first. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) That's totally against every precedent I've seen for blocks. I guess we're setting a new precedent, then, and admins are going to be now tasked with ensuring that people get away from the keyboard / do their homework / get a life, now? Bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, as long as this isn't done again... Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Like what? — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made a similar request in the past. One time I asked administrator to block me for a half-hour as a test, but the conclusion of the discussion was that the test not be made. (see here). — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally I agree with Tan - it could have been compromised. However, the talkpage specifically says he's semi-retired from sometime ago.  At that point, we simply show him how to scramble his password, and leave him alone until he requests a password fix. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)